The only US sanctions in place before August 2017 were asset freezes and travel bans aimed at a handful of Chavista politicians and their cronies.
The real flaw in Graham’s film was the implication that Vote Leave won by turning the European question into something else.
The logic is clear enough. The EU’s choice would be between no backstop and nothing else either; or no backstop and agreement on everything else.
Cowardice and lack of vision have brought us to this pass – facing all the costs and obligations of EU membership, but with no voice, no vote and no veto.
Imagine if they raised money to help honour the soldiers who answered Britain’s call during two world wars – thus showing more than anger and resentment.
Frankly, any outcome – no deal, Norway, Canada, even the risk of a second referendum – would be better than what is currently on the table.
The presumption of innocence should not be some empty piety. A nasty aspect of politics is that this principle is reversed when the headlines are bad enough.
Our treaty would be the most comprehensive ever. And it rests on mutual recognition, not top-down standardisation.
In the third piece in our mini-series evaluating the EEA, our columnist wonders how both sides managed to become so hostile to moderate concepts.
In an atmosphere when anyone can close down the conversation by saying “I feel uncomfortable”, rational discussion becomes impossible.
The trend fuels harmful misrepresentations and myths. It might bring in ad revenue, but it harms the fabric of our democracy.
Their hysterical tone serves only to make EU negotiators dig in deeper – thus, paradoxically, making a breakdown in talks more likely.
Instead of leaving the Customs Union but retaining chunks of the Single Market – we shall end up staying in the Customs Union but leaving most of the Single Market.